MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244377004 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14664660

Energy benchmarking and ventilation related energy saving potentials for small and medium sized enterprises in Greater Toronto area

2021· preprint· en· W4244377004 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tamima Ahmed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingEnergy consumptionVentilation (architecture)Efficient energy useEnergy accountingEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental economicsBusinessEngineeringMechanical engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past several years, energy benchmarking has become a very popular tool for the estimation of energy consumption and overall performance of buildings. More recently, industrial energy benchmarking has attracted attention all over the world, due to ever-increasing energy demands. Industrial facility ventilation is one of the most overlooked components in terms of overall industrial sector energy consumption. Therefore, a proper assessment and manage of energy can lead to a great reduction of energy usage, as shown in different small and medium industrial plant case studies. Although several articles and reports that have previously discussed ventilation analysis of industrial facilities in Ontario, energy benchmarking has never been conducted on ventilation. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to present a detailed energy benchmarking method and analyzing energy consumption and savings based on ventilation energy consumption. An energy benchmarking analysis was conducted in different small to medium sized facilities in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), based on ventilation analysis. It was determined from the analysis that the typical and inefficient performing facilities can reduce average of 9% of their total natural gas consumption from total ventilation, 25% from transmission heat loss and 10% from infiltration loss compared to the top performing facility among all the audited facilities in this study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207